5 ms·
"""If you are on the receiving end, you only have to agree with the terms.""" This is where I see a problem. Can somebody suppress my rights (to share, to sin
by iambvk 17y ago
"""If you are on the receiving end, you only have to agree with the terms."""
This is where I see a problem.
Can somebody suppress my rights (to share, to sing, etc.), in the form of terms? Is a right is something that I can trade?
I don't understand these issues much, just doubts :-(
- moron4hire 17y agoWhat does the movie theater do to you when you enter BUT suppress your rights to sing/talk/shout/etc, on the terms that they will let you watch the movie? What does the military do to you BUT suppress your right to freely determine your life, on the terms that they will provide food, shelter, and training to you?
- joe_the_user 17y agoAh, but that's within a pretty limited domain. If the movie theater also restricted your right to write a negative review afterwards, say, it would be a bit dicey. Some contracts that suppress rights might be defensible BUT the point is that such contract are not apriori valid. Indeed, your the military example shows the need for limits; there's a reason that only the state can operate with the contract you describe. If a private organization could do such a thing, there would serious trouble on many fronts (private armies = bad things).
- moron4hire 17y agoIf a movie theater would want to restrict your rights to write a negative review, why would you attend that movie theater? If a contract is bad, you don't enter into it
- cschwarm 17y ago> Can somebody suppress my rights (to share, to sing, etc.), in the form of terms? You're making some fundamental logical errors here. Your first premise is that you have these rights. But where's your rationale for that? The simple truth is that you only have these rights if the objects under consideration are yours. But you have no right to share my books. You have no right to share my house. You have no right to share my property. And you have no right to sing my song. Unless I give you my permission to do so, of course. So, your first premise is wrong. Your second premise is that it's suppression if you were not given all possible permissions. But you agreed to the terms with a free will. No one forced you to do that. No one pointed a gun to your head telling you what to do. In fact, you are free to do the same work I have done to author the work, in the first place. So, your second premise is also wrong. I don't know what your conclusion is but it's probably wrong, too, because your premises are.
- iambvk 17y agoIf you are so certain about your understanding, good for you. I was asking whether you can set terms that limit my rights? You are not government, right? I don't think you understood my 2nd question at all. No, as i said, I was not concluding anything.
- cschwarm 17y agoI see. Sorry I misunderstood your intentions, then. There are basically two contexts the word "right" is used: an moral and a legal context. If the right you're talking about is an moral one, you surely can trade it. This happens all the time since people differ in moral judgements. For example, some may say you have a right to health. Assuming the premise is true, you can still "trade" it for the (subjective) benefit of smoking. If the right you are talking about is a legal one, it depends on the law. I don't think, for example, that you could sell your right to vote. However, there are other rights you can sell. For example, copyright gives you certain rights that you may sell or trade.